On Sat, 2023-03-18 at 14:59 +0000, William Breathitt Gray wrote: > It is a common code pattern to modify a bitfield by masking the field > and performing a bitwise OR with the respective FIELD_PREP. Wrap such a > task into a macro by introducing FIELD_MODIFY() which modifies the field > specified by a mask from a bitfield by putting a val in the field. So I have no objection to adding this and you using FIELD_* macros, but just wanted to say that personally I've come to prefer the typed versions declared later in the fiel, and there we have <type>_replace_bits() already. Hmm. And now that I mentioned that, maybe that means FIELD_REPLACE() would be nicer as a name? johannes
